Leszek Gawron skrev:
Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
Leszek Gawron skrev:
Grzegorz Kossakowski wrote:
Leszek Gawron pisze:
...
I remember that I have read that discussion and I agree that there
was no clear consensus.
I also remember that there were several folks expressing their
opinion that jx should as far from
imperative programming language as possible. I second that opinion
so I'm quite concerned with your
example. It is a programming language.
XSLT lives without such constructs so could you give us a use case
for this one?
We should leave the behaviour of JXTG exactly as is. The template
framework (yes it actually is designed to be a framework even if we
haven't used this) makes it easy to create a new template language.
So if you don't like the way JXTG is designed you should design a new
template language that has an own generator and an own namespace.
Who did you address this statement to? Me or Grzegorz?
Grzegorz
Thing is last refactorings introduced backward incompatibilities. I
tried to upgrade to next internal release and my webapp went nuts. By
saying "we should leave the behaviour as is" you mean we should keep
those incompatible changes?
No I mean that we should keep the behaviour that we have in 2.1.x for JXTG.
...
We had a discussion about what to have in a new CTemplate language,
see http://marc.info/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=110942299719102&w=2. Maybe
it is time to review if the ideas there still holds and then continue
the work on creating a CTemplate language.
Do you bookmark these? I never seem to be able to find the right
thread to reference and you're always shootings with URLs. :)
No I tend to remember what I have written and then I search for my name
in marc.info, and browse backwards until I find the thread.
/Daniel
